<HTML>In a message dated 11/22/02 10:02:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, furuhashi.1@osu.edu writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">That said, one of the things that WW/IAC/ANSWER have done well is to create the coverage of an _upcoming_ event even in such corporate media outlets as the _Washington Post_ -- for instance, they got the following (largely favorable) 1127-word article about the Oct., 26, 2002 protest _before_ it happened. </BLOCKQUOTE> Yoshie, I guess I have a different definition of "largely favorable" than you do. I am all for self-criticism and for activists analyzing what works or doesn't work. And I agree that getting notice of your events in the papers before during and after them is a skill and a valuable skill for anyone trying to make a point. But why do I consider this article less than favorable, in spite of the fact that I myself do not think the IAC / WWP link is the central problem of current peace rallies? I think it's a matter of degree. If the ONLY article about an anti-war event has to spend half its space saying "This is an anti-war rally, not all those other things those terrible pinkos are associated with" in some ways we have already lost the battle compared for instance to mainstream coverage of Social Security privatization. VERY seldom do mainstream articles add any disclaimers about "Social Security privatization, the latest plan to transfer vast wealth to the same hucksters who sold us Enron, but this time it will be kinder and gentler...." or anything of the sort. I have no idea how to keep pulling consistent messages out of the salad of opinions and analysis that is the anti-war movement but I think to make a difference we have to learn! In the case of this war, there are more than enough people across the spectrum who think it's a dumb idea that "let a hundred flowers bloom" seems apt. Yesterday I was reading an obnoxious op-ed piece by some defense analyst ragging on the peace movement for being ineffective because he felt his point of view was not represented among their actions. I had this splendid kneejerk reaction: "Hey let me diss my own people if they need it, but you gotta give me something I can run with too." So now I have to go reread his piece beofre I can comment further. DoreneC </HTML>